Lion of the Blogosphere

Bush v. Gore, 3 U.S.C. §5, and election recounts

I think the rule is that if a constitutionally acceptable recount can’t be completed by six days prior to the meeting of the electors (which is December 13th because the electors meet December 19th), then the original determination of the winner stands.

But I can’t say I’m 100% certain that’s the rule.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

November 27, 2016 at EDT pm

Posted in Law

7 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. That makes sense, otherwise the system could be easily gamed by the party with congressional majority.


    November 27, 2016 at EDT pm

    • Of course, as people would say: Pick your poison.

      I’ll take El Bufón Donaldo over Hillary the Witch anyday. America is now in full swing of a comedy show. The good thing is that NAMs are probably not laughing that much.


      November 27, 2016 at EDT pm

  2. Lion – the worldwide Trumpening has started – Angela Merkel feels sagging poll numbers, announces plan to deport over 100,000 and Marine Le Pen leading in initial polls in France for next year’s election, with former President Sarkozy already eliminated in early rounds:


    November 27, 2016 at EDT pm

  3. The whole thing is utterly ridiculous. These liberal idiots promoting it should be embarrassed, but they have no shame. TRUMPGOD melting down on Twitter over it is hilarious, but ill advised. No winners in this catastrophe. Well, except Jill Stein.

    Two in the Bush

    November 27, 2016 at EDT pm

  4. I’ve been paying attention to this whole recount thing since before Thanksgiving. What I find truly amazing is how little coverage there is all over the media. Castro is being discussed more than this recount. The media on all sides is simply mum about the matter.

    Think about it. By now, the NY Times should have full articles explaining the technicalities of this recount, with pundits and lawyers discussing the inner workings of this process. Yet, I see or hear nothing.

    It’s almost as if the Democrat Party is being maneuvered for a fall.


    November 28, 2016 at EDT am

  5. I found this from a commenter at Zerohedge.

    Wisconsin law requires Jill Stein to file a verified petition (that means under oath) stating:

    “That the petitioner is informed and believes that a mistake or fraud has been committed in a specified ward or municipality in the counting and return of the votes cast for the office or upon the question or that another specified defect, irregularity, or illegality occurred in the conduct of the election.” 9.01(1)(a)2.b.

    Stein has no information of any specific mistake, fraud, or irregularity, as even the “computer scientists” she relies on agree there is no such evidence. As such, Stein should be prosecuted for perjury.


    November 28, 2016 at EDT am

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: